emu_set_node_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates mutation (Modifies) and the simulation context, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or impact on other nodes/state. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it explains the effect and use case. It lacks notes about reversibility or reset behavior, but given that sibling tools like emu_reset_store exist, this is adequately covered contextually.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only names 'status' and 'RIS return code' which map directly to the schema. It does not clarify the relationship or mutual exclusivity of status vs risReturnCode, leaving potential ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool does: it modifies the status and RIS return code of a cluster node, and it names specific use cases (simulate failover, network isolation, service degradation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like emu_set_phone_status, which target a different resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by mentioning the simulated scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., emu_set_phone_status or emu_list_nodes). No use-case exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.